The Peace and Freedom Party, Libertarian Party of California, Green Party of California, and American Solidarity Party of California, along with six individual candidates, alleged that California's top-two primary system violates their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by creating "an unconstitutional barrier to ballot access for minor parties" and discriminating against them in favor of major parties. Under the system, implemented through Proposition 14 in 2010, all candidates compete in a single primary regardless of party affiliation, with only the top two vote-getters advancing to the general election.
Judge Chesney found that most of the plaintiffs' claims were precluded by a 2013 California state court ruling in Rubin v. Padilla that upheld the same top-two primary system against nearly identical constitutional challenges. "California courts employ the 'primary rights theory to determine what constitutes the same cause of action,'" Chesney wrote, explaining that "two suits involve the same cause of action when they involve the same primary right." The court determined that the current lawsuit involved the same injuries and legal wrongs as the earlier case.
The judge was particularly pointed in rejecting plaintiffs' argument that new data about minor party candidates' failure to reach general elections since Rubin distinguished their case from the prior litigation. As Chesney explained, "where...the two actions involve the same wrong and same injury, 'the same primary right is at stake even if in the second suit the plaintiff...adds new facts supporting recovery.'" She noted that data about minor party candidates' lack of success was already presented in the Rubin case.
The Rubin litigation began in 2011 when the same political parties challenged the top-two primary in Alameda County Superior Court, alleging it violated their ballot access rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The trial court dismissed the case with prejudice in September 2013, finding that the system gave all parties equal access to the general election ballot. The California Court of Appeal affirmed in February 2015, and both the California Supreme Court and U.S. Supreme Court denied review.
On the claims that weren't barred by res judicata, Judge Chesney applied the Anderson-Burdick balancing test, which weighs the burden on constitutional rights against the state's justifications. She found that California's system mirrored Washington state's top-two primary, which the Ninth Circuit upheld in 2012, noting that minor parties "participate in a primary at the same time, and on the same terms, as major party candidates." The court rejected arguments that the ban on write-in voting in general elections was unconstitutional, citing Supreme Court precedent in Burdick v. Takushi.
Judge Chesney did grant leave to amend on two narrower claims: a challenge to scheduling primaries in March during presidential election years, and the American Solidarity Party's claim about how unqualified parties' preferences are designated on ballots. She found these claims lacked sufficient factual allegations about the specific burdens imposed. "Although ASPC points out, the FAC includes a citation to Soltysik, the Court finds the above-referenced conclusory assertion...does not suffice to plead the claim in the absence of factual elaboration," Chesney wrote.
The ruling represents a significant victory for defenders of California's top-two primary system, which was designed to promote moderate candidates and reduce partisan gridlock. Intervenors Californians to Defend the Open Primary and Independent Voter Project had argued alongside Secretary of State Shirley Weber that the system provides equal opportunities for all candidates while serving important state interests in election administration.